Welcome friends!
Last time I discussed what I consider to be some of the fundamental elements of my own liberal value system. Today I would like to conclude my short two-part introduction with my impressions of some other common American political perspectives and a short discussion of how I feel they differ from liberalism.
Conservatives
Conservatism comes in two distinct forms, so I will discuss them separately.
Social Conservatives
Social conservatives disagree rather strongly with the liberal meta-value that one should be free to do as one likes as long as one’s behavior does not significantly impinge on the welfare of other people, which I suggested last time was important for preserving as much space for individual liberty as possible. Instead, social conservatives believe society would be better off if we all held the same values in addition to the same meta-values. As a result, social conservatives tend to exhibit what many liberals feel is an inordinate interest in other people’s private affairs. How does this differ from the liberal meta-value supporting freedom of thought and speech? Shouldn’t we be free to discuss and debate about other people’s private behavior and beliefs? Of course. But in the case of social conservatives we’re not talking about people simply explaining what they think other people should be doing with the understanding that at the end of the day it’s really none of their business. No, social conservatives really believe your business is actually also their business. They really want you to behave in a way that’s consistent with their own values, and many are willing to go well beyond friendly and reasonable discussion in appropriate contexts to bring that about. Specifically, many social conservatives resort to religious hate speech and intimidation, often in the most inappropriate contexts, and many even see no problem at all with using government police powers to get their way. To many social conservatives, liberty is mostly about their freedom to express their religious views, which unfortunately often entails using any means necessary to control those with different views.
I’ve noticed an interesting variety of rationales social conservatives use to insert themselves into other people’s business. Probably the most benign is the paternalistic idea that one has a moral duty to look after the spiritual welfare of other people, and if other people are making unfortunate personal choices, well then one has a duty to intervene and sort them out. Then we have the idea that there is really no such thing as a private sphere of life, that even one’s ostensibly private life affects other people in a variety of indirect and ill-defined but potentially significant ways, say by setting the overall tenor of a society or by providing examples of unacceptable behavior to impressionable or weak minded third parties. However, my personal favorite is the notion that other people’s private behavior is, in fact, directly linked to one’s own welfare via supernatural entities. Some relatively recent examples of this remarkable bit of claptrap that made it into the news include Pastor John Hagee’s proclamation that Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans because God was angry about a gay parade and Islamic cleric Mr. Hojjat ol-eslam Kazen Sediqi’s theory that the cause of some earthquakes in Iran was that God was angry about women who wear revealing clothing and behave promiscuously. (The beauty of the argument is that it really works with anything. Did your well go dry? Did your cow die? Well then, you need to get into your neighbor’s private affairs and sort them out right away!) Obviously, if one accepts any of these types of arguments then one’s business is never merely one’s own business: it’s everyone’s business.
Nor are social conservatives particularly at ease with democratic political solutions to situations involving interpersonal conflicts, that is, situations in which one person’s behavior significantly impinges on the welfare of another person. You see, social conservatives aren’t really very concerned about working out some sort of compromise between people with different values so we can all manage to live together. No, social conservatives have a rather more grandiose agenda. Essentially, they believe they have the answers. All other people have to do is listen and obey. And their agenda is mostly about appeasing otherworldly spirits and such; it’s not about making a world in which we can all have space to live. Indeed, social conservatives are always ill at ease in a freedom loving democracy because their philosophy really has no place for diversity of either thought or action, which I suppose is the main reason there are always so many cranky social conservatives about.
Of course, all joking aside, I can see the obvious superficial appeal of social conservatism. It’s certainly always easier and more comfortable to deal with people who share your values. (Yes, it’s fine and dandy to share a few higher level meta-values but it’s even nicer to share all of one’s values.) Unfortunately, this type of uniformity of values comes at a rather steep price: it creates an oppressive society perpetually challenged and threatened by the diversity in individual thought and behavior that is the natural result of a free society. Indeed, I would suggest in a free society social conservatism inevitably breeds coercion, conflict, resentment, and eventually social upheaval. As a case in point, many of us remember the relatively socially conservative 1950s and early 1960s. Yes, it was rather nice in some ways. But let’s be realistic for a moment and take off the rose colored glasses, shall we? That uniformity, and the stratagems required to enforce it, created significant social tensions that eventually erupted and took years of social and intellectual conflict to resolve (and undoubtedly destroyed or impaired many lives in the process). I, for one, would not care to relive that particular epoch. And let’s just take a quick look at some other socially conservative countries around the world. I mean places like Russia, Iran, China. Are those the types of places in which any of us would really like to live? So, to the social conservatives among us, all I can say is I can see where you’re coming from and I appreciate your concerns. I truly hope you find a way to surround yourself with like-minded people and be at ease. But can we also keep the social contract and our commitment to individual liberty as well? Maybe I’m an idealist, but I think with a bit of work you might be able to find a way to have it both ways.
Economic Conservatives
Economic conservatives are all about the relative merits of government and markets. The basic motivating beliefs of economic conservatives are existing markets can never do wrong, everything worth doing can be done best by a market, and one can or should never evaluate or reassess (or really even discuss) distributional issues because they’ve already all been handled in a way that eliminates all potential issues. These beliefs lead to the logical conclusion that democratic government is largely unnecessary, can only do wrong, and should therefore be minimized, and indeed that the entire democratic enterprise is little more than an unfortunate and misguided opportunity to mess about with the much more meaningful and desirable social decisions achieved via markets.
Many economic conservatives are social conservatives. I suppose the underlying link in this case may be the notion that people should simply accept traditional mores and social structures as they are and not try to modify or improve upon them. Interestingly, however, many other economic conservatives are not social conservatives at all but actually hold quite liberal beliefs about the importance of personal liberty. Indeed, historically, an interest in free markets was often framed in terms of individual liberty and early economic conservatives were often characterized as liberals. This is a tricky area I will probably take up in future posts, but I think the main distinction between liberals and economic conservatives when it comes to thinking about personal liberty is that liberals tend to think of economic relationships and markets as social structures we have formed through political processes to address conflicting material needs and desires. From this perspective, the economic sphere is firmly rooted in the public sphere, and discussing and possibly modifying economic arrangements through democratic political processes, when necessary, is entirely appropriate. Indeed, from this perspective, discussing existing economic arrangements in terms of one’s personal liberty would imply that the economic arrangements that affect one person have no significant effect on other people, which is patent nonsense. Economic conservatives, on the other hand, tend to want to view existing economic arrangements as privileged or special in some way and to consider any discussion about potential revisions as an affront to their individual liberty. Indeed, some economic conservatives would like to remove the hand of man entirely from existing market arrangements. They prefer to think of our current system of economic relationships as having issued forth from the heavens as a sort of natural law or as something akin to the immutable laws of mathematics.
Economic conservatism has two disparate bases of support: 1) people who are doing very well and who either don’t care much about other people or who believe anyone having difficulties is just getting what he or she deserves (and people on their payroll, of course), and 2) people who may have studied a bit of economics and understand the potential advantages of certain market arrangement very well but unfortunately do not recognize or understand any of the potential problems (and people who listen to them on the radio). The interaction between these two groups, and especially their financial arrangements, has sometimes led some liberals to suggest the latter are merely the paid lap dogs of the former. However, I don’t think that’s being entirely fair. Although some conservative pundits and policy wonks are indeed probably just following the gravy train, there seem to be many rank-and-file economic conservatives who are so enamored of existing markets arrangements or so soured on democratic government they continue to support conservative economic policies that are demonstrably impoverishing them. So it is hardly fair to say they are simply following the easy path of elite patronage and support.
Now, as someone with some exposure to academic economics I must admit I have a bit of a soft spot for economic conservatives. I think it would be rather lovely if the world actually worked in the manner they believe. I want to believe too, I really do. Alas, I have personally never found any rational basis for economic conservatives’ unshakable confidence in the infallibility of markets (and their corollary belief in the inevitable corruption and ineffectiveness of government) in either theory, history, or my own personal experience. Indeed, it is rather astonishing to me that even after the near meltdown of our entire economic system, due by all accounts primarily to shady dealings by private actors in the financial and real estate markets, economic conservatives have come right back with what appears to be their sole policy prescription, apparently suitable for any and all occasions: reduce government! I wonder what it would take to make these people suspect some markets might work more effectively if properly regulated? It makes one suspect perhaps another link between social and economic conservatism is that the tenets of economic conservatism form a sort of simple creed, rather like a religious theory, that appears to be entirely immune from the influence of actual experience.
And by the way, on a more practical note, yes, I want other people to keep their hands off my stack too, the same as anyone else. And of course, just like anyone else who is doing OK, I feel I am very special and quite possibly uniquely worthy of everything that has come my way. But let’s just be honest with ourselves for a moment, shall we? Our market structures do not actually derive from the immutable laws of the cosmos: they are social structures we have created to produce and allocate goods, and as such it is perfectly reasonable to want to assess how good a job they’re doing, not just for me, personally, or for me and you, but for everyone in our society. And I might also point out no man is really an island when it comes to economic success however much it may appeal to one’s ego to think so. (For my part, I’m thankful to all the people who have helped me along the way and also to my lucky stars for my innate talents and all the other circumstance that were beyond my control but that have contributed to where I am today.) So, if we find we need to rearrange things a bit from time to time to help some deserving people stay afloat and to keep our system stable and roughly in balance, well I’m sorry but that doesn’t really seem like the end of the world to me.
Libertarians
Libertarians are extreme economic conservatives who are not social conservatives and who tend to use overblown antigovernment rhetoric that may remind one of anarchists.
Tea Partiers
As far as I can tell, Tea Partiers are extreme conservatives who are angry.
Anarchists
Three types of people seem to me to be attracted to anarchism: 1) silly people who actually believe in the utopian pipe dream of a peaceful and prosperous society with no government, who I suppose one might also reasonably call extreme libertarians, 2) criminal types who dream of a world where they can kick some butt and grab some booty with no legal consequences, and 3) kids who are tired of their parents telling them what to do.
References
Hagee Repeats Charge that Katrina Result of Gay "Sin."
www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/04/hagee_repeats_charge_that_katr.html
Iranian cleric blames quakes on promiscuous women. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8631775.stm
Next Time: Let the topical madness begin!
